🚨 Justice Denied: Mirzapur Minor’s Grievous Assault Case Highlights Alleged Police Non-Compliance and Human Rights Failure

---

In a deeply troubling Minor’s Grievous Assault Case that has escalated to the Chief Minister’s Secretariat in Uttar Pradesh, Smt. Abhiraji Nishad, a Block Development Council (BDC) Member from Mirzapur, has filed an urgent appeal (Registration No. GOVUP/E/2025/0132284). The appeal directly challenges the alleged biased closure of an earlier grievance. It questions the Superintendent of Police, Mirzapur, for not complying with a directive from the State Human Rights Commission (SHRC).

The core of the matter centers on the alleged grievous assault. Police later denied justice for her 12-year-old son. Who sustained a medically confirmed bone fracture. An injury that qualifies as “Grievous Hurt” under Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

This incident occurred on September 25, 2025, against named accused individuals. It has transformed from a criminal complaint into a profound test of administrative accountability. It also tests human rights protection within the state.

📜 Timeline of Alleged Police Failures

The applicant’s grievance details a series of actions—and inaction—by the Mirzapur police administration. She alleges these have resulted in a severe miscarriage of justice for her minor child. (Minor’s Grievous Assault Case)

1. Starting Denial of Justice (P.S. Vindhyachal) (Minor’s Grievous Assault Case)

The first alleged procedural lapse occurred instantly after the incident:

• Refusal to Register FIR: The aggrieved party made allegations. They stated that the Vindhyachal police station did not register the First Information Report (FIR). This relates to the cognizable offence of grievous hurt. This contradicts the Supreme Court’s Lalita Kumari judgment. The judgment mandates the compulsory registration of an FIR when information discloses a cognizable offense.
• Refusal to Issue MLC: The police allegedly refused to issue a Medico-Legal Case (MLC) memo. This refusal forced the applicant to seek private treatment for her son’s fracture. She had to bear the treatment cost herself.

2. SHRC and IGRS Intervention

After the first refusal, two major oversight bodies took charge of the matter. (Minor’s Grievous Assault Case)

• State Human Rights Commission (SHRC): The SHRC (HRC Net Diary No. 6897/IN/2025) reviewed the complaint and issued a directive on October 8, 2025. According to it, Superintendent of Police (SP), Mirzapur, to “look into the matter and do the needful according to law.”
• UP Government PG Portal (IGRS): I filed a separate grievance (Ref: GOVUP/E/2025/0113890) on the public grievance portal.

3. Biased Closure and Alleged Contempt (Minor’s Grievous Assault Case)

The most critical point of the appeal is the closure of the IGRS case. This occurred on November 12, 2025. It was based on a report from the Circle Officer (CO), City Mirzapur (Vivek Jawala). The applicant asserts this closure is a clear act of non-compliance with the SHRC’s direction. It is also seen as a demonstration of institutional bias.

---

🛑 The CO Report: Justifying Inaction with Malicious Intent?

The grievance meticulously dissects the CO’s report, claiming it relies on false and illegal grounds to dismiss a verified injury. (Minor’s Grievous Assault Case)

1. The False Claim on Medical Evidence

The CO’s report allegedly claimed that the complainant “did not provide any medico-legal documents.” The applicant counters that this deliberately ignores the attached X-ray and prescription, which confirm the fracture. (Minor’s Grievous Assault Case)

The applicant argues: The police initially refused to generate the necessary MLC memo. Now, they are using their own illegal omission as a false premise. This is to dismiss the subsequent, privately secured, and verifiable evidence of a severe injury. This is a crucial point, suggesting a systemic effort to cover up the starting lapse.

2. Malicious Presumption of Guilt (Minor’s Grievous Assault Case)

The CO is also accused of illegally dismissing the minor’s complaint. They allegedly linked it to a separate, older case involving the minor’s father and brother. The CO’s report allegedly stated that the complaint was filed “in whose defense” of the minor’s relatives.

Legal Precedent Violated: The applicant emphasizes that using a counter-allegation denies a minor victim a fundamental right. This right is to have a cognizable offense (Grievous Hurt) registered and investigated. Such an action is an illegal finding and a gross dereliction of duty. The victim’s right to justice for a crime is independent of the conduct of his relatives in other matters.

3. Dereliction of Duty and Protection of Accused

The appeal argues that by refusing to register the mandatory FIR, the police have shown gross dereliction of duty. The SP’s office allegedly neglected to act on clear evidence and the SHRC directive. This effectively protects the accused and promotes an environment of impunity and lawlessness. (Minor’s Grievous Assault Case)

---

🙏 A Plea for the Chief Minister’s Intervention (Minor’s Grievous Assault Case)

In her appeal, Smt. Abhiraji Nishad makes a clear and structured plea to the Chief Minister’s Office. She requests immediate and decisive intervention to guarantee administrative fairness. Her goal is to uphold the law.

The prayer calls for:

1. Immediate Compliance and FIR Registration (Minor’s Grievous Assault Case)

• A direct order was given to the Director General of Police (DGP), Uttar Pradesh. This order ensures the SP, Mirzapur, promptly complies with the SHRC direction and the law.
• The FIR should be registered promptly under Section 325 IPC (Grievous Hurt). It must also include other relevant sections against the named accused, who are Umar Shankar, Laxmikant, and Kaju.

2. Impartial Investigation

• A directive specifies that a senior officer conduct the investigation. This officer should be an Additional Superintendent of Police (ASP) or higher. This ensures impartiality.
• The authorities must conduct the investigation outside the immediate circle of the implicated officers and ensure it is time-bound. (Minor’s Grievous Assault Case)

3. Accountability and Disciplinary Action (Minor’s Grievous Assault Case)

• Initiation of appropriate disciplinary action against the Station House Officer and the Circle Officer (Vivek Jawala) is necessary. Those in charge are accusing them of manifest dereliction of duty. They have shown non-compliance with the SHRC. There is also a biased closure of a serious human rights matter involving a child.

The team has now marked the case as “Grievance received.” They forwarded it to Shri Arvind Mohan, the Joint Secretary in the Chief Minister’s Secretariat. This is for necessary action. The outcome of this high-stakes appeal will highlight the efficacy of the state’s public grievance redressal mechanisms. It will also show the commitment to protecting the rights of its most vulnerable citizens. This includes a minor child who sustained a severe injury. (Minor’s Grievous Assault Case)

---

What are your thoughts on this matter? Would you like me to look for any official updates? I can also find guidelines related to the Lalita Kumari judgment on mandatory FIR registration.

2023 Corruption Perceptions Index reveals urgent need for tangible change in Asia Pacific